Учебное пособие 2134

Russian Journal of Building Construction and Architecture

In the northeastern part of the PPT adjacent to the existing railway, in accordance with the project there is a residential area represented by the construction of 9-16-storeyed residential buildings. The territory is divided by intra-block driveways closed to the city highway, Komsomolskaya Street. The recreational zone is organized in the water protection zone of the Oka River in the southern part of the master plan and is also represented by squares and boulevards of residential quarters. The natural park “Botanika” located in the immediate vicinity is not functionally considered in the project.

The main task in the design in the second option (Fig. 2) was to maximize the use of the existing natural park and coastal zone. The residential area represented by the development of 9––25-storeyed residential buildings is located in the northeastern and northwestern parts of the TPP, adjacent to the railway. Public residential and public business zones are represented by 3––17-storeyed buildings located along the central alley. The unloading highway (alternative to Komsomolskaya Street) is designed in order to address the transportation problem in the area.

Fig. 2. Planning design for the Botanika microdistrict, Orel. The second design option

The following characteristics which aggravate the environmental situation were taken as the original data: lowering of the relief and thus deterioration of the self-dispersing ability of the atmosphere; the border from the north with an industrial zone represented by food industry enterprises (Ltd. “Orlovsky Bacon”, vegetable oils plant); the border on the southern side with the industrial enterprise “Avtoselmash”, factories of concrete goods and “Foam

100

Russian Journal of Building Construction and Architecture

natural component, i.e., atmospheric air, as well as low efficiency of the existing MSW management mechanism as evidenced by the low values of the indicator from the range of 0 ... 1.

4. Assessment of the spatial and territorial provision of the population of residential areas.

The category of urban space plays a critical role in the system of urban planning indicators while designing a favorable urban environment. The key concept in this category is “population”! [9]. Other urban planning categories “territory” and “development” determining spatial differences in the intensity of settlement at the design site can be considered secondary to the life environment of a biospherically compatible city [10]. The territory is the material basis as well as the major most valuable resource for designing an environment for human life, not only because it is a spatial resource for building but also is a resource for designing open urban spaces that are essential to the characteristics of the urban environment [14]. Excessive use of the territory “not only considerably reduces the living (spatial and psychological) comfort but also leads to overcrowding and an increase in epidemiologically dangerous contacts and the spread of diseases” [12].

The concept of “density” is related to the categories of urban space and is one of the key indicators commonly used in urban planning practice including land planning projects. In the aggregate of density indicators as an urban planning category, the major indicator is population density which reflects the relationship between humans, city, and biosphere [9]. In urban planning practice density indicators are most important for determining the load on the natural landscape and the spatial boundaries of various urbanized systems (e.g., agglomerations). Since urbanized areas are sources of powerful anthropogenic impact on the natural environment, the study of population density has gained environmental significance. This is how the concepts of “critical”, “permissible” and “maximum permissible” [3] population density emerged. The critical density is defined as that of the maximum saturation of the territory above which qualitative changes occur in the natural environment. V. V. Vladimirov provides such indicators as the “critical density” of the population in a city or within the boundaries of an urban agglomeration from 2500 people/km2 in the nuclear of the agglomeration to 300 people/km2 in industrial areas of agglomerations [3].

Another indicator for assessing the interaction of the technogenic and natural environment is the building density. This indicator is considered in urban planning practice in two aspects: 1) as a two-dimensional planar characteristic of the development of the territory, i.e., the coefficient of development (K1). It is calculated as the ratio of the area occupied by buildings and structures to the area of the site (quarter). Indicator K1 reveals such an important component of the design solution as the ratio of open spaces and built-up areas of planning formation;

102

2) as a three-dimensional spatial characteristic of the use of the territory, i.e., the coefficient of building density (K2). It is calculated as the ratio of the area of all ground floors of buildings and structures to the area of the site (quarter). These indicators are standard town planning characteristics that are currently provided in SP 42.13330.2016 Urban Planning. Planning and Development of Urban and Rural Settlements, Appendix B.

The use of the coefficient K1 in urban planning ensures the obligatory preservation on the territory of the land plot of open areas essential for designing green spaces, sports and playgrounds, territories for other purposes catering for the city residents’ needs in a particular social infrastructure. The maximum permissible indicator of the coefficient K1 in residential areas under the conditions of the reconstruction of buildings is 0.6 or 60 % of the territory of the site can be built up, 40% remains for open undeveloped areas. While designing a plot of a new residential planning formation with multi-apartment multi-storey residential buildings, K1 is 0.4, in this case undeveloped areas that can be employed for various needs and human development already make up 60%.

The density coefficient K2 is aimed at providing comfortable living in residential buildings. E.g., the density coefficient equals 1.2 as specified in SP 42.13330.2016 for new residential formations can be observed with an average 9-storeyed building.

Based on the importance of the spatial and territorial provision of the population of residential areas, it is proposed that the assessment of residential areas include the following fundamental urban planning indicators:

1.population density (people/hectar);

2.construction density:

2.1.construction coefficient K1 (m2/hectar),

2.2.construction density coefficient K2 (thousand m2/hectar).

Variations in the construction density indicators best reflect the conditions for human development: economic, environmental, social properties of the urban environment. Since the adoption of the Athens Charter, the design of residential areas has gone down an extensive path of development when the boundaries of the city are expanded, i.e. “territorial growth due to the development of free territories”. In the absence of the latter, the building is compacted. As a result, the structure of the center is undergoing changes in a hypertrophied manner, public spaces are being built up. The transformation of the town-planning form is manifested in the overconsolidation of buildings in the central and middle parts of the city as well as the spread of the urbanized territory along the exit highways and in suburban areas.

103

Russian Journal of Building Construction and Architecture

5. Assessment of the structural and planning organization of the residential area/ microdistrict. The efficiency of the structural and planning organization of the territory is identified using a number of synthetic indicators reflecting the effectiveness of measures, including considering the urban planning and natural features of the territory, the interconnected placement of residential buildings, public buildings and structures, the street road network, green areas of public use and other objects, the expressiveness of the volumetric-spatial building solutions.

In order to design conditions for human development in residential areas, the well-known and commonly used indicators of urban planning of residential areas can be supplemented with those of the density of urban structures:

––density of public and business infrastructure expressed through the ratio of the number of public and business organizations in the service sector to the total area of the design site;

––density of the road network expressed through the ratio of the total length of roads to the area occupied by the projected area,

––density of pedestrian spaces expressed through the ratio of the area occupied by pedestrian spaces to the total area of the design area.

An important indicator is the availability of public transport to the population calculated as the ratio of the number of individuals residing in the zone of comfortable pedestrian accessibility to public transportation stops (up to 800 m) to the total population of the district/microdistrict.

The assessment of the expressiveness of the volumetric and spatial solution of the building (the presence of houses of different storeys, different types of residential buildings differing in architecture and planning of the object) is proposed to be assessed using the indicator of the monotony of the building which is calculated as the ratio of the number of buildings of the two most common types to the total number of houses. The higher this indicator is, the less the variety of buildings will be and the other way around. E.g., the microdistrict project proposes the use of 100 buildings of 5 types. Among these, the two most common types are comprised by 80 buildings. Hence P = 80/100 = 0.8. If the two most common types are 50 buildings, P = 50/100 = 0.5. The lower the indicator is, the greater the variety of buildings is. Therefore the assessment of the structural, planning and architectural organization of the district/microdistrict includes the following indicators:

1. development of social and business infrastructure:

1.1.level of development of public and business infrastructure (units of objects/hectar);

1.2.share of the territory of public and business infrastructure (%);

2. density of the road network (km / km2);

104

chitectural planning solutions should be developed taking into account the existing and previously assessed ecological situation. Having managed to retain the consistency in the methodology of urban planning and the methods of urban environment employed in urban planning practice, the indicators for assessing spatial and territorial resources, structural planning and architectural organization of the territory should be primarily considered as an urban planning tool for analyzing internal stability and well-being of the living environment, designing conditions for human development in the urban environment.

Conclusions. It is obvious that the public need to organize a comfortable and safe urban environment calls for transformation of the design paradigm towards the environmental imperative of modern urban planning. Therefore the possibility of developing a methodological basis for urban planning at the microterritorial level using the principles of the paradigm of biosphere compatibility aimed at human development in interaction with its environment is discussed.

The methodology for designing residential areas of the city is based on the four blocks of indicators as well as those calculated in a quantitative assessment: environmental safety, spatial and territorial resources, structural and planning organization of the territory, urban functions. The suggested list of the assessment indicators for each block is not exhaustive. The authors believe that follow-up studies should be conducted in order to clarify the composition of indicators and to develop assessment calculation algorithms. The performed experimental calculations to assess options for design solutions at the level of planning projects for residential areas prove to be promising and critical for social orientation of the resulting urban planning methodology in designing essential conditions and social infrastructure objects.

References

1.Antyufeev A. V., Ptichnikova G. A. Sinergeticheskii podkhod v teorii razvitiya goroda [Synergetic approach in the theory of city development]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo arkhitekturno-stroitel'nogo universiteta. Seriya: stroitel'stvo i arkhitektura, 2016, no. 46 (65), pp. 195–210.

2.Akhmedova E. A. Gradostroitel'noe regulirovanie regional'noi sredy obitaniya [Urban planning regulation of the regional environment]. Samara, Samarskii universitet Publ., 1993. 163 p.

3.Vladimirov V. V. Rasselenie i okruzhayushchaya sreda [Settlement and environment]. Moscow, Stroiizdat Publ., 1982. 228 p.

4.Esaulov G. V. e.a. Gradostroitel'naya doktrina Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Urban planning doctrine of the Russian Federation]. Moscow, Ekon-inform Publ., 2014. 30 p.

5.Il'ichev V. A., Emel'yanov S. G., Kolchunov V. I., Bakaeva N. V. Innovatsionnye tekhnologii v stroitel'stve gorodov. Biosfernaya sovmestimost' i chelovecheskii potentsial [Innovative technologies in urban construction. Biosphere compatibility and human potential]. Moscow, Izd-vo ASV, 2019. 208 p.

107

Russian Journal of Building Construction and Architecture

6.Il'ichev V. A., Kolchunov V. I., Gordon V. A. Metodika prognozirovaniya pokazatelei biosferosovmestimosti urbanizirovannykh territorii [Method of forecasting indicators of biosphere compatibility of urbanized territories]. Seismostoikoe stroitel'stvo. Bezopasnost' sooruzhenii, 2010, no. 2, pp. 52–57.

7.Il'ichev V. A., Kolchunov V. I., Bersenev A. V., Pozdnyakov A. L. Nekotorye voprosy proektirovaniya poselenii s pozitsii kontseptsii biosfernoi sovmestimosti [Some issues of settlement design from the perspective of the concept of biosphere compatibility]. Academia. Arkhitektura i stroitel'stvo, 2009, no. 1, pp. 50–57.

8.Karimov A. M. Metodologicheskie, infrastrukturnye i organizatsionnye predposylki modernizatsii gradostroitel'noi deyatel'nosti v sovremennykh sotsial'no-ekonomicheskikh usloviyakh [Methodological, infrastructural and organizational prerequisites for the modernization of urban development in modern socio-economic conditions]. Biosfernaya sovmestimost': chelovek, region, tekhnologii, 2015, no. 2(10), pp. 57–64.

9.Mityagin S. D. Gradostroitel'stvo. Epokha peremen [City building. Time of changes]. Saint Petersburg, Zodchii Publ., 2016. 280 p.

10.Ptichnikova G. A. Ustoichivoe razvitie gorodov na printsipakh biosfernoi sovmestimosti s prirodnym kompleksom [Sustainable urban development based on the principles of biosphere compatibility with the natural complex]. InnovativeProject, 2016, vol. 1, no. 4 (4), pp. 112–116.

11.Reimers N. F. Ekologiya. Teorii, zakony, pravila, printsipy i gipotezy [Ecology. Theories, laws, rules, principles, and hypotheses]. Moscow, Rossiya molodaya Publ., 1994. 366 p.

12.Kuz'min A. V., Yusin G. S. Kachestvo zhizni i kachestvo prostranstvennoi sredy – sotsial'nye standarty i normativy v gradostroitel'stve, arkhitekture, stroitel'stve [Quality of life and quality of the spatial environment – social standards and standards in urban planning, architecture, and construction]. Gradostroitel'stvo, 2011, no. 4 (14), pp. 16–20.

13.Pryadko I. P., Ivanova Z. I. Biosfernye i sotsial'nye protsessy v aspekte formirovaniya dizaina gorodskoi sredy [Biosphere and social processes in the aspect of urban environment design formation]. Promyshlennoe i grazhdanskoe stroitel'stvo, 2017, no. 10, pp. 12–17.

14.Chistyakova S.B. Ekologicheskie aspekty regulirovaniya gradostroitel'noi deyatel'nosti [Environmental aspects of urban planning regulation]. Academia. Arkhitektura i stroitel'stvo, 2009, no. 4, pp. 31–35.

15.Shubenkov M. V., Shubenkova M. Yu. Gradostroitel'nye sistemy: ot neustoichivogo ravnovesiya k ustoichivomu neravnovesiyu [Urban planning systems: from unstable equilibrium to stable disequilibrium].

Architecture and Modern Information Technologies, 2018, no. 4 (45), pp. 305–313.

16.Shubenkov M. V., Shubenkova M. Yu. K voprosu poiska sbalansirovannogo sosushchestvovaniya prirodnykh i urbanizirovannykh territorii [On the search for a balanced coexistence of natural and urbanized territories]. Biosfernaya sovmestimost': chelovek, region, tekhnologii, 2019, no. 3 (27), pp. 3–16.

17.Shubenkov M. V., Shubenkova M. Yu., Kartashova K. K. Simbioticheskoe razvitie urbanizirovannykh i prirodnykh territorii [Symbiotic development of urban and natural territories]. Architecture and Modern Information Technologies, 2019, no. 4 (49), pp. 215–223.

18.Barton H., Grant М. Urban Planning for Healthy Cities. A Review of the Progress of the European Healthy CitiesProgramme.JournalofUrbanHealth:BulletinoftheNewYorkAcademyof Medicine,2011,vol.90,suppl.1.

19.Birtch, J. Biosphere Eco City. Available at: http://escarpment.org›_files/file.php?fileid…Eco_Cities

20.Hall P., Pfeiffer U. Urban Future 21. A Global Agenda for 21st century cities. London, E & FN SPON, 2000.

108

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

1. Contributions should be clear and comprehensible. The essential element is Introduction (~0.5 pages) and Conclusions (~0.5 pages), other structure elements (sections and perhaps, subsections) should be introduced as titles.

1.1.Introduction involves:

justification of the importance of the study;

analysis of the latest publications on the relevant topic that are referred to in the manuscript;

identification of the issues yet to be addressed (problems);

identification of the purpose of the study (statement of the problem).

1.2.The main body should be structured using logical elements as titles. There should be no general titles (e.g., “Theoretical Part”, “Experimental Part”). More specific topics are preferred (“Theoretical Justification of Designing Anisotropic Cost Surfaces”, “Analysis of the Nature of Failure in the Experimental Samples”, “Calculation of the Strength of Foundation Cores”). Overall there should be no less than two sections.

1.3.Conclusions end the paper and specify the scientific novelty of the study results (“It has been for the first time determined/calculated…”, “We found…”, “The obtained results proved/denied…”).

2. Special attention is to be given to the abstract: it should be concise and reflect the main points of the study. Logical abstracts as well as the text are divided into three parts –– Statement of the problem, Results and Conclusions that are highlighted with titles. Each of the parts summarizes corresponding parts of the text, i.e. introduction, main body and conclusions.

The abstract should contain no less than 10 and no more than 15 lines.

3. The article should be no less than 5 and no more than 12 А4 pages. The margin in the left and right is 2 сm, from the bottom and top 2.5 сm.

4. The affiliations of the authors must be specified as well as their positions, degrees, honours, contact details (at the beginning of the article).

5. For the main body use 12-point Times New Roman, equalizing the width of the text. Do not use another other font. In order to keep the style consistent, do not use italics as well as highlights.

In order to introduce extra elements of the text (author information, abstracts, keywords, references, notes, captions of figures and tables), use 10-Times New Roman (also single spaced).

109